tv CNN Newsroom with Poppy Harlow and Jim Sciutto CNN March 5, 2019 7:00am-8:01am PST
tarnished, that you can't wash this away. but respective of that, they will plow on the track that they're on. crowned prince mohammad bin salman will continue to be the crowned prince. that's not going to change. the torture that we heard about fatahi in the ritz carlton hotel is not specific to him. we've heard about it happening to others who were in that hotel. >> five months ago and a day, jamal khashoggi was murdered. nic robertson, thanks very much. all right. top of the hour. good morning, everyone. i'm poppy harlow. >> and i'm jim sciutto. as we speak, 81 people are mulling how to respond to a brand-new demand for information from the house judiciary committee. while the president, who is not on that list, responds as he often does. this morning, he says that the dems have, quote, gone stone cold crazy, obstructing justice, he says, by launching a big fat
phishin fishing expedition. again, quoting there. >> obstruction of justice a key point of investigation against the president in the special counsel probe, which the president never files attack. but now a former white house lawyer is airing some very different views about the investigation and of robert mueller himself. ty cobb tells abc news in a new podcast he does not see the mur mueller probe as a witch hunt. our phil mattingly joins us on the hill. that's really interesting, in and of itself. also really interesting are these 81 names on a list that could be growing. phil? >> that's exactly right. judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler making clear that this was only the first request for names. more could be coming in the days and weeks. but if you look at this initial request, you recognize that this effort by the judiciary committee, this effort by house democrats is neither limited nor is it subtle. it goes directly to the heart of the president's closest relationships and family members, like his sons, donald junior and eric trump. to some of his closest trough
organization confidants, allen weisselberg, rhona graff, former white house officials, sean spicer, steve bannon. it tracks in the categories from the trump organization to the trump campaign to the white house, the current white house, and into these involved with the russia investigation that have been unearthed up to this point. and i think one of the big questions now is there are document requests. what comes next? particularly if some of these individuals don't cooperate? well, jerry nadler was asked this question by erin burnett last night. will he consider subpoenas? this is what he said. >> for two years, the trump administration has been attacking the core functions of our democracy and the congress has refused to do any oversight. they've refused to -- they've shielded him. they've acted more as shields than as what the congress is supposed to do, which is to be a check and a balance. we are going to be the check and the balance. we are going to find out, we are going to lay out the facts for the american people. >> reporter: so it's worth noting that this is the first step. it's document requests,
subpoenas are very much a possibility. so are future hearings. it's going to be a lengthy, methodical process, but one that's very much still kicking into gear right now, guys. >> phil, from the groups that have been requested in the individuals, can you figure out a focus? or really are they open to all lines of inquiry here, you know, business wrongdoing, political, et cetera? >> reporter: it's certainly a wide scope at this moment. but they've really kind of characterized it into three or four particular issues. you have the russia collusion investigation. there are pieces of that. there's corruption. there are the hush money payments to people who have been talking about now for the past couple of months. there's the obstruction case, where they look into the firing of fbi director james comey. and there's also abuse of power issue. you're talking about emoluments and greed and corruption. those are the allegations that are being laid out. those are the issues they're going to be looking into, trying to collect evidence, trying to make the case publicly. see where they end up going from here, guys. >> right. if this is the beginning, and how big this list is going to get. phil, thanks very much, on capitol hill for us. so when asked whether he will cooperate with an investigation,
the president says, these are his words, he, quote, cooperates every time. as for the white house, press secretary sarah sanders, she called the house judiciary committee, quote, a disgraceful abuse, fishing exhe ambition and false allegations. >> fishing exhibition clearly a talking point. but ty cobb has a different take. have a listen. >> i don't feel the same way about mueller. i don't feel the investigation is a witch hunt. a lot of things distracted him from focusing on the president, from manafort's, you know, decade-old issues to you know, the papadopouloses of the world and, you know, the carter pages of the world and the roger stones of the world. so it's not my view that it's a witch hunt. >> kaitlan collins at the white house. kaitlan, so ty cobb with a very different approach to this investigation than president trump's current legal representation.
>> reporter: yeah, and ty cobb has been out of the white house for nearly a year now. and not only does he not agree that the mueller investigation is a witch hunt, which also the president and his allies have repeated often times, he often disagrees with the president, when the president says that robert mueller is highly conflicted to be the special counsel. instead, ty cobb says that robert mueller is someone he's known for decades, and when he thinks of him, he thinks of him as a war hero. >> i think bob mueller is an american hero. i think bob mueller is a guy that, you know, even though he came from an arguably privileged background, you know, has a backbone of steel. he walked into a firefight in vietnam to pull out one of his injured colleagues and was appropriately honored for that. i've known him for 30 years as a prosecutor and a friend. and i think the world of bob mueller. >> reporter: now, two other things from this interview with ty cobbs that stuck out. once, he says he disagrees with the approach that people like rudy giuliani and other members of the president's legal team have taken, because he believes
they've undermined the public trust in the special counsel to conduct a fair investigation. and two, as we're all waiting for that report to come out, ty cobb says he believes it's going to be shorter rather than longer. and he does not think it's going to be the silver bullet that's going to take down the trump presidency. and he does not think it is going to tie any kind of collusion between the trump campaign and russians. >> kaitlan collins at the white house, thanks very much. we're joined now by former presidential adviser, david gergen, advised a bunch of presidents. and former federal prosecutor, elise wiehl. thanks to both of you. david, i want to ask you about the political implications of this. because a lot of those districts have swung from red to blue in the midterms, were moderate democrats, right? here you have a democratic party now controlling the house, taking a very aggressive investigative posture towards the president. politically risky in your view? >> i think there is a risk. i'm glad you asked the question. a lot depends, jim, on what perspective you're looking at this from. there are some observers, like
david lee in "the new york times" today wrote in his opinion that nancy pelosi had this investigation under good control, that she had the right balance of zeal with caution. that she was holding back and the committees were holding back from talking about impeachment. they were going to do all of these preliminary investigations first. that's one perspective. and i think a lot of democrats will rally to that perspective. the other perspective is, thisa looks like a free for all coming just after the mueller report does not, you know, by all accounts, may not be as explosive as first thought, may not find collusion, and the democrats are moving now to a broader set of investigations that i think a lot of republicans and maybe some independents are going to say it, looks like it's piling on. and they're overplaying their hand. my own view is, right now, that the democrats may think that with six committees, they've got this under control. but they would be well advised to almost act like a justice department and issue some kind
of statement to the country, to the people of the country, about what they're trying to do with these various investigations, what the justifications are, and what the precedents are. there are precedents for what they're doing, going back to watergate, that are important. but i think they need to periodically tell the american people, how does this all fit together as opposed to looking like we're just in a war against these guys. >> well, to that point, david, we just said congressman jamie raskin, and he said the reason he's here, he said there's been no oversight over the last few years from republicans. that's him making that case to the american people. how would you most effectively approach it? i know you brought up watergate. are you saying something like an ala watergate-type investigative committee and a single entity would be the most effective? >> in watergate, notably on the senate side, they combined committees, in effect.
they organized a select committee, sam irving, the senator from south carolina ran. he was democrat. and howard baker was his top-ranking republican. and it was that committee that is worth remembering that its investigation turned out to be pivotal for the whole watergate case. it was that committee that discovered there was a taping system in the white house. nobody knew that before. it hadn't come out in any special counsel report or anything like that. so these investigations do have not only precedent, but they've been valuable. what i do think is that under all the circumstances and the fact we've had two years of investigations now of donald trump, that the democrats in the house, in the country, would be well served by some sort of statement that is updated periodically about how this all fits together. >> yeah, you definitely sense some impatience. elise, you have some experience here to say the least. you were a lawyer for the democrats on the judiciary committee during the clinton impeachment proceedings. as you look at this now -- of
course, you were on the other side then, right? republicans investigating a democratic president here, what do you see as the dangers for democrats? >> well, and jerry nadler, of course, was on that committee, as well. so he was tail actually, you know, a democrat on that committee. john conyers was heading the judiciary committee at that point. so he has experience going through this. and of course, he saw the political side of that, which was clinton was impeached or that clinton was impeached. but then, of course, his polls were never higher after that. and sort of a republicans did not fare well with that, even though the republicans were impeached. so i think nadler's looking at that probably and saying, look, we need to have this investigati investigation, but i think the point is well taken that heshtd be issuing reports out of the investigation saying, here's what we're trying to do.
but at the very beginning of an investigation, i think that it's very -- it's got to be from a legal perspective, this is what you would do, have a very broad scope to it. because what are you trying to do at the beginning of any investigation? you're trying to find the facts. you're in a fact-finding or discovery stage. and that's what you're doing with sending out 81 requests. and they are only requests now. there are only voluntary requests. i assume that they are going to turn into subpoenas. why do i assume that? because of the short turnaround time. only a two-week turnaround time. to me that says, hey, we're giving you sort of a wink and a nod, knowing that you're not going to respond in a yes way, right? because you're not going to do that in two weeks. so that's going to be a "no." we're going to subpoena you, and maybe even compel your testimony and see whether or not you take the fifth. >> david, how about senator sanders. i think lisa is so smart to bring up lisa's approval rating, that it 73%.
a record high for him, during these impeachment proceedings. is this an apples to apples comparison when you look at the president currently, or is it an apples to oranges sort of look here. meaning, should the democrats look at that and learn something or is this just different? >> i think the democrats should look at that and learn something. there is a parallel here, of course. and that is that bill clinton, they had impeachment proceedings against bill clinton, because he was charged basically with having sex, in the oval office. but then lying about it. and now we have a president who on the hush money thing, is accused of having sex. and then paying people to hush up, in effect, to lie about it. so there is that parallel. but i do think that after two years of, you know, of additional investigations, clinton was a much more sympathetic figure, because it suddenly happened out of the blue, and he was riding along and doing well as president.
but with trump, he's been mired in investigations since he got into office. i think people are -- i think the country now wants to have and understand why are we going to do this. it may be very, very justified. but i think they need to persuade the people and bring people along. if they want to get national support for this, and not have it turn into whatever -- >> give some answers. lis, before we go, your thoughts? >> yes, and the difference, too, is that kenneth star, who was in the clinton investigation, the individual counsel, he was able to present his case. here, we may never actually hear what mueller's investigation produces, because most of it may be redacted, which is why jerry nadler may be starting this investigation to begin with. >> i remember when the star report came out, we were all reading it. this may be a very different circumstance. >> exactly. >> interesting, the difference between an independent counsel and that statute expiring and a special counsel now. >> exactly. >> thank you, both. lis, nice to have you. david gergen, as always, thanks.
senate majority leader mitch mcconnell concedes there are enough votes to block the president's emergency declaration. next, we'll talk to a republican lawmaker who not only supports the president's declaration, but was recently deployed for service to the southern border. plus, he's not one of the biggest names to enter the 2020 race, but washington governor jay inslee is announcing an impressive fund-raising haul. how'd he do it? and a second hiv-positive patient possibly cured for good. new details in what could be a remarkable discovery, and that's coming up as well. ♪ t-mobile will do the math for you. right now, when you join t-mobile, you get two lines of unlimited with two of the latest phones included
for just one hundred bucks a month. that we just hit the motherlode of soft-serve ice cream? i got cones, anybody wants one! oh, yeah! get ya some! no, i can't believe how easy it was to save hundreds of dollars on my car insurance with geico. ed! ed! we struck sprinkles! [cheers] believe it. geico could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance. geico could save you fifteen percent you'll make my morning, buty the price ruin my day.ou? complicated relationship with milk? pour on the lactaid, 100% real milk, just without that annoying lactose. mmm, that's good. i had a few good tricks to help hide my bladder leak pad. like the old "tunic tug". but always discreet is less bulky. and it really protects. 'cause it turns liquid to gel.
set to vote against president trump's border emergency declaration. joining us now, one of the republican congressman who voted in favor of the president's declaration. he was deployed to the border, we should note, as a member of the air national guard, congressman adam kinzinger of illinois joins us. congressman, lieutenant colonel, thanks for taking the time. >> you bet. yeah. >> so you said that being deployed down at the border solidified, really, your support for an emergency declaration. we were following your tweets from there, you tell the story of the border patrol rescuing a woman lost in the mountain. you talk about the tracking of coyotes, these people who prey on immigrants coming in. you talk about a big capture of meth. i wonder, though, would a wall help solve any of the promise you were talking about down there? >> yeah, i think it would, jim. and here's why. so this was my fourth deployment to the border. three prior were under president obama. so to all the, you know, governors that are pulling the guard away from the border, the guard has nothing to do with the
national emergency. that's been goinging ing oing about a decade. the guard is the technology on the border. but what i saw when i was there, and this is my first time doico the guards paid for by the cartel, the cartel raises money on two basic products, drugs and human beings. and they shuffle both of those over the border at great profit, some through the ports of entry, but a lot through the rugged terrain of the border. so what i saw, if we saw somebody and they heard a helicopter or they thought they were going to be pursued, they would drop these big bundles. we would pursue the people, eventually, maybe the border patrol would go back and get the bundles. a lot of the times, those would have drugs in them. you would see these coyotes abandon a group and leave them out in the middle of a desert where there's no life for 50 miles from there pause they're obviously afraid of getting caught and leave people out in the desert to die, which is why you see 200 dead about a year in arizona. so i come back skpand said, bece of the drugs and human trafficking, i support it.
>> okay. i get that argument. you're making your case here. the president has made that case for really more than two years, going back to his election campaign. but the fact is, congress did not authorize funds for that wall. both chambers of congress did not. how is an emergency declaration to get those funds not circumventing what is the constitutional role of congress? >> well, it's not appropriating new money. and the anti-deficiency act does not allow the appropriation of new money. having read the presidential emergency powers that congress gave a president, that he has that authority. now, ultimately, that will be decided in the courts. they have much more legal expertise than i do. but in my readthrough of it, he has that authority. that includes the transfer of phones -- funds like military construction and counterdrug. i don't think he'll be able to -- >> but the courts have already -- you go back to truman, right? this is the first time and i know folks will say, there have been dozens of emergency declaration since this law was
enacted, that is true. but this is the first time the president will declare an emergency after -- you know, congress hasn't stayed silent on this. congress rejected the president's request for the money he wanted for this. that's the standard the courts established. and the president would be setting new ground here with this declaration. >> yeah. well, i mean, it may be new grounds in being able to do that. as i read through, it's within his purview to do it. and look, i see this. and this is where it all becomes kind of opinion in terms of whether you support a national emergency. i see this as a national security issue. if this was just an issue of immigration, i wouldn't support it. but the other issues i saw -- and now the fact, too, outside the legality of it, that we're seeing basically democratic governors pull their guard back and say, oh, there's no national emergency, so i'm going to withdraw the national guard that has been here in some cases for a decade, you know, there is no willingness on the other side of the aisle to work with us. i'm for comprehensive immigration reform. i used to be called a liberal or a moderate in my party because i'm for this.
but one of the keys to that is there has to be border security. and my friends on the other side of the aisle think that any now national guard or active duty or any wall is somehow racist and not compassionate. i think it's the opposite. when you have cartels recruiting people to give them their life savings to take them on a journey that leads to either sexual assault or death in some cases, that's not compassionate, to give hope that they can make it that way instead of the legal and right way and safe way. >> look, you've done your homework. you've done it wearing the uniform. you went down to the border. i respect your position. i do want to note that you, like many republicans, when president obama used executive authority without congressional approval, you opposed it. i'm going to quote from you, in 2014, when the president was considering executive action on guns. you said, time and again, the president, this being obama, has chosen to push his authoritative agenda with little regard for constitutional progress. why is the president not doing exactly what you criticized president obama for? >> because you can't change a law on guns or immigration with
the stroke of a pen. if somebody was trying to change a law, that would be a very different situation than a president saying, i'm declaring a national emergency on the border. i'm not appropriating new money out of thin air. i'm actually switching resources from things like d.o.d. counter-drug to actually fighting drugs on the border through this emergency order. and it's focused on things that are a threat to the american people. is there always consistency among republicans and democrats? no. that's something we have to accept. but in terms of what i say and what i see, i think it is consistent to oppose a president that would attempt to change a law versus a president that would attempt to take existing resources and enforce a thing like border kinzinger, thanks for joining us. >> anytime. all right. so he may not be the best-known democrat who has jumped in the 2020 race, but he made a big fund-raising haul. we're talking about washington state governor jay inslee, big fund-raising in the last 48 hours. how'd he do it?
does removing makeup your skin deserves better. garnier micellar cleansing water with micelles that work like a magnet. it's a pure way to remove stubborn makeup without harsh rubbing. cleansing, reinvented. micellar water. by garnier, naturally! and back pain made it hard to sleep and get up on time. then i found aleve pm. the only one to combine a safe sleep aid, plus the 12 hour pain relieving strength of aleve. i'm back. aleve pm for a better am. means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance.
the communal feast. potluck. this parade of dishes will soon be yours to scrub. and they're not even... yours. new and improved dawn ultra can finish off this buffet. each drop now has even more grease-cleaning power. so you can scrub 50% less, and get done faster. next month, their place! a drop of dawn and grease is gone.
neighbors...loved ones. living with diseases like cancer, epilepsy, mental health conditions and hiv. maybe you're one of them. but new medicare rules could deny access to the latest, most effective therapies... therapies that keep them healthy. are medicare cuts that save less than one percent worth the risk to millions of patients? call and tell congress, stop cuts to part d drug coverage medicare patients depend on.
stop cuts to part d drug coverage all of you. how you live, what you love. that's what inspired us to create america's most advanced internet. internet that puts you in charge. that protects what's important. it handles everything, and reaches everywhere. this is beyond wifi, this is xfi. simple. easy. awesome. xfinity, the future of awesome. washington governor jay inslee says his campaign has raised over $1 million since he announced his presidential bid on friday. >> that is a big haul. the 48-hour haul puts him up there with some of the most recognizable names in the democratic field so far. look at them, kamala harris, amy klobuchar, bernie sanders, as well. let's discuss now with alyssa,
the former deputy chief of staff for operations in the obama white house. she's author of a new book, "to here's the thing: notes on growing up, getting older, and trusting your gut." advice for young women. so where did this financial support come from? quite a haul for someone who at least in east coast political circles, less well known. >> so i think probably, i mean, i think he's taking some pac money. i think where bernie was very specific about the grassroots support that he got, i feel like inslee's money probably came from some more high donors, bigger checks that he probably, i'm guessing going into the end of the quarter, march is the end of the first quarter, i think everybody wants to put up a pretty good number. my guess is he probably front loaded as much as the money as he could, so he could put as much money as he could. >> first of all, hello to your parents, randy and lydia. i understand they're watching. good morning, mom and dad. look, inslee said this morning to john berman on "new day," because john asked him, rightly so, why are you taking pac money
when a lot of the dems are? he said, i'm not taking corporate money, that is his platform. but when you look at the new, like pew research poll within the last year or so, it shows climate change is like the 19th most important thing to a lot of voters, right now. how admirable, for sure, for him to talk about something so important. how is it going to work for him to run on a climate change platform? >> i think that the single-issue candidates, hard. i know, i think that you do have -- we all agree that climate change is a problem. i think that people also want to hear about fighting corruption and government, getting big money out of politics, which i'm not sure how he sort of finesses that message to people who care. dealing with health care. i just don't know that people will ultimately coalesce around someone. but as we've learned, whether it was in the new york governor's race with cynthia nixon, having someone who's pushing an agenda or a single issue really does help to shape the party and the
platform of whoever becomes the nominee. so i think it's probably nothing but upside. >> the number one issue, frankly, you hear most often is, beating donald trump. >> right. >> let me ask you about this. hillary clinton made it official that she is not running, but said she would continue to advise candidates. it's interesting, it's not like you have candidates seeking that, at least in public. "new day" had a focus group this morning and asked about joe biden and no one raised their hand, at least in that focus group, for joe biden. i wonder if you sense in this field, but also in what democrats are looking for this time around, that they want a fresh face. they want someone new. >> i think there's a real desire for, you know, in the past couple of years, we've seen the same people diagnosing what they think are the problems and giving their solutions and i don't think that people have bought into that. i think they want fresh eyes and fresh minds diagnosing what they see as the challenge s in front of them and hearing new ideas. and the truth is, maybe, in the
end, they will choose someone who is more trust proven, croyo know, and able to -- has been a public servant, has won elections before. but i think right now, people want to hear more. >> what about women? >> all the women? all the women running for president? >> but when push comes to shove and this thing gets closer and closer, you know, is america not only ready for a woman, but how likely do you think it is that a woman is the top of a democratic ticket? >> i am very hopeful that -- i mean, i think that the most important thing is that we have someone who can beat donald trump. i think that having a woman saying -- you hear a lot of people talk, oh, i want a woman, and it doesn't matter. i want a woman because i think a woman can beat donald trump. >> like, he hasn't attacked kamala harris publicly, which i think is really interesting. >> i think he knows that's even above his -- like, that's punching above his weight. >> we'll see. >> yet. >> beto o'rourke had some
momentum. it's faded. he's calling for the national legalization of marijuana. cory booker also pushing legalization. why? is that a driving issue in this cycle? >> i think it's very important, the more -- i mean, i'm -- i'm honestly very for the legalization of marijuana. it's helped my health, it helps people deal with all sorts of mental health issues, instead of opioids. a >> but there are democratic voters that are not particularly excited about that. >> it's true, there are. i don't think any one party has a true litmus test for, you know, we have to have this or we're not going to vote for you. but i think that it is important, especially to millennial and gen-z voters. >> and finally, this new poll that is really interesting to me, the nbc/"wall street journal" poll that shows that 38% of americans say the system is broken, a third party is needed. that's the highest number since they started tracking this in '95. i think only one out of 10 americans said the two-party system is working really well.
what does that mean for a door being more open for an actual third party candidate. obviously, howard schultz considering a run. what do you think? >> i don't think howard schultz is the third party candidate that they're talking about. i think that right now, we're dealing with, you know, an electorate that dealt with a government shutdown that was 31 days, even if we can say the democrats won, they stared donald trump down, they don't care. the people in that poll don't care. they know that they were worried about where their paycheck was going to come from and they had to decide whether to take their cancer treatments or pay their rent. it's not remotely shocking to me that people feel that way. the question will be is, if there's a challenge to donald trump in the republican party and if democrats have a good message, do they still feel that way in six months? >> good point! congrats on the book. >> thank you. >> number two, right? >> thanks so much, alyssa. >> thank you. we may be one step closer to a cure -- imagine that -- for hiv. a second person gone into remission. could this breakthrough have
researchers -- it's a breakthrough that researchers have been working for decades upon we'll have more. named 'park' in the u.s. ninety-six hundred roads it's america's most popular street name. but no matter what park you live on, one of 10,000 local allstate agents knows yours. now that you know the truth, are you in good hands? i switched to chevy. i switched to chevy. we switched to chevy. i switched from a ram to a chevy. see why people are switching to chevy. we love our chevy. why did we switch? just look at it. switch into a new chevy today. current competitive owners get 14% below msrp on most colorado pickups. that's over $5,400 on this colorado.
find new roads at your local chevy dealer. that's over $5,400 on this colorado. if your moderate to severeor crohn's symptoms are holding you back, and your current treatment hasn't worked well enough it may be time for a change. ask your doctor about entyvio®, the only biologic developed and approved just for uc and crohn's. entyvio® works at the site of inflammation in the gi tract, and is clinically proven to help many patients achieve both symptom relief and remission. infusion and serious allergic reactions can happen during or after treatment. entyvio® may increase risk of infection, which can be serious. pml, a rare, serious, potentially fatal brain infection caused by a virus may be possible. tell your doctor if you have an infection experience frequent infections or have flu-like symptoms, or sores. liver problems can occur with entyvio®. if your uc or crohn's treatment isn't working for you, ask your gastroenterologist
i learned my people came from a small region in poland and even a little bit of the history about why they might have migrated during that time. those migration patterns are more than just lines on a map, they're really your family's story. i can't wait to see what i'm going to discover next. 20 million members have connected to a deeper family story. order your kit at ancestry.com.
senior medical correspondent elizabeth cohen joins us from atlanta. elizabeth, this is di-- i mean, this is remarkable. i was just watching the movie, "queen," and was just brought back to this time when this was just such a tragic epidemic. tell us about what has happened here. >> exactly, when so many of us lost friends and loved ones and family members to hiv. so what's happened here, poppy, is really remarkable. this is now the second patient who not only had hiv, but who also had cancer. and so to treat the cancer, they gave this patient a stem cell transplant. and so they intentionally chose a donor who had this very unusual genetic mutation that made him immune to hiv. so they did the transplant with stem cells from that person and it made this patient in london, now called, appropriately enough, the london patient, that made that person effective liqueured of hiv. this is the second time that's been done. there was another hiv patient who also coincidentally had cancer, and also -- he has not
had hiv, it's been more than 12 years and neither one of these gentlemen is on any kind of hiv therapy. so this is really pretty stunning. i want to add, though, they have tried this on other hiv patients and it hasn't worked. so sometimes it seems to work and sometimes it doesn't seem to work. >> so let me ask, the circumstances are obviously unusual, because hiv-positive, but also suffering cancer. does this -- would you -- to get the same treatment, would you have to be -- have the same circumstances, right? be both suffering cancer and have hiv, or could this be a model for a broader set of hiv-positive patients? >> so the problem -- you might think, why not just do this for everyone? the problem is that stem cell transplants are very risky. they can kill you. and so if you don't have karcan and you don't need this transplant, you don't want a stem cell -- if you don't need the transplant, you don't want to get it, because it could kill you. you're much better off taking hiv drugs, which are very effective and which are very safe. so you don't want this treatment unless you have cancer. it's just not safe.
>> all right, elizabeth. this is amazing to hear. thank you for bringing us that story. i also want to get you on this. right now happening live on kpl capitol hill, you're looking at pictures of ethann lyndenberg, n 18-year-old talking about the importance of vaccinations. we had him on here before, because he defied his parents about getting all these vaccines. let's listen to what he told us a minute ago about why he's doing this. >> when you're looking at the sources that spread this information or these lies, for lack of a better, or more accurate term, it's very clear that all the information is incorrect, skewed data. everything is not cited. and also, there's a lot of emotional appeals, talking about family and children and appealing to a parent's love. and almost manipulating that to convince them that vaccines are dangerous. >> elizabeth, this comes on top of a brand-new study that once again shows the mmr vaccine, for example, is not tied to autism
at all. what can you tell us? >> this study is really huge. more than half a million children, they looked at who got a measles/mumps vaccination and who didn't and they found there was no connection whatsoever between getting that vaccine and getting autism. so once again, hear this well, vaccines do not cause autism. there have now been more than a dozen studies like this that show it, this science is conclusive, it is done, this question has been answered. >> and yet people are still quoting one quack doctor who got this whole thing started years ago. >> a quack doctor whose own journal had to correct him and retract his work. >> elizabeth, thanks very much on all of that. a program that let the nsa collect domestic phone records may be ending. why the white house is stopping the controversial practice is next. ♪
t-mobile will do the math for you. right now, when you join t-mobile, you get two lines of unlimited with two of the latest phones included for just one hundred bucks a month. you wouldn't accept an incomplete job from any one else. why accept it from your allergy pills? most pills don't finish the job because they don't relieve nasal congestion. flonase sensimist is different. it relieves all your worst symptoms, including nasal congestion, which most pills don't. it's more complete allergy relief. and all from a gentle mist you can barely feel. flonase sensimist helps block six key inflammatory substances. most pills only block one. and six is greater than one. flonase sensimist.
all right. really interesting developments. the nsa is scrapping a surveillance program that relied heavily on collecting data from your phone records. >> this program was authorized under the usa freedom act and requires reauthorization at the end of the year. but the trump administration may not seek to extend it. this, of course, one of the programs revealed by edward snowden. cnn pentagon correspondent, barbara starr, joins us now. so barbara, what can you tell us about this program, i guess, best described as the me tahame program here, and the somewhat surprise decision by this administration to scrap it. >> you reported on it extensively, this is a program that was very controversial right from the beginning, collecting on phone calls and texts, duration of calls, where calls were being made, not collecting the content of the
calls. not that kind of eavesdropping kind of effort. and after 9/11, and by all accounts, it was an effort to have a window, if you will, into the united states, in case there was credible information about terrorists, calling into the united states and plotting and planning here. but it became very controversial once it was revealed, people very concerned that the government was spying on them. and now it does look like it will not be reauthorized. not a lot of splaunexplanation from the administration about all of their reasoning behind it. but according to republican staffers on capitol hill, it looks like this is a 9/11 program that's going to go away. >> they always had trouble citing examples as to where that collection program actually prevented an attack and that's a key standard. on another issue, separate from the terror threat, talk about the threat from russia, and we understand that the top general, u.s. general overseeing forces in europe, he's concerned about the u.s. response to russia's aggression there, tell us what
he had to say. >> well, general curtis scaparrotti is on capitol hill, still testifying at this hour, right now before the senate armed services committee. he's the head of european command, so he oversees all u.s. military operations in europe. and a short time ago, he was asked by the committee chairman, senator inhofe, whether he was satisfied that the u.s. military had enough capability and enough ability to respond to russian aggression. general scaparrotti's answer, perhaps, not very comforting. >> i'm not comfortable yet with the deterrent posture that we have in europe in support of the national defense strategy. in particular, when you look at the -- both the building capability and the modernization of the russian forces that we face there, and then, finally, of concern is my intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance
capacity, given the increasing and growing threat of russia, i need more isr. >> the top u.s. general telling congress he needs more intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance capability in europe right now to understand what the russians are doing. look, nobody thinks that the russians are about to launch an all-out military attack on europe, but their aggression, as you both well know, is very much aimed at destabilizing europe through cyber, through information operations, through, you know, the sort of classic little green men moving into crimea, moving into ukraine, and scaparrotti is saying, he needs more capability, right now, to be able to deal with that. jim, poppy? >> the u.s. did not predict russia's annexation of crimea, invasion of ukraine, could there be something else? back here at home, representative ilhan omar, she's under fire again for comments again that some are calling anti-semitic. now members of her own party are
means they won't hike your rates over one mistake. see, liberty mutual doesn't hold grudges. for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't raise their rates because of their first accident. switch and you could save $782 on home and auto insurance. call for a free quote today. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪
we really pride ourselvesglass, on making it easy to get your windshield fixed. with safelite, you can see exactly when we'll be there. saving you time for what you love most. >> kids: whoa! >> kids vo: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace ♪ blended with purpose, for fragile hair. with revitalizing ginger, known to recover strength, and golden honey. as a whole blend, it provides twice the breakage protection. to make hair stronger instantly. blended makes us better. whole blends. by garnier, naturally.
for the second time in three months, house democrats are expected to pass a resolution condemning anti-semitism, this following remarks made by freshman representative, ilhan omar. >> last week, the democrat suggested that pro-israel groups are pushing allegiances to a foreign country. sunlen serfaty joins us on capitol hill. so this is really similar to the vote a few weeks ago by republicans, in the house, to condemn antianti-semitism, afte some of her other controversial remarks on that front.
but the significance and the difference is that this is brought forward by democratic leadership, is that right? >> that's definitely right, poppy. this is another very public reprimand for congresswoman ilhan omar, in the wake of controversial comments. but it is notable and significant, the fact that you have this resolution of disapproval against those comments, essentially. it has been -- it has a weight of democratic leadership by it. it's been driven in large part by speaker pelosi, by steny hoyer and the chairman of the house foreign affairs committee. they all took part in writing this. so that's a significant message coming from members of our own party, and important democratic leadership here. the resolution does not mention her by name. it does not single her out in any way, but it's certainly not hard at all to read through the lines. the resolution, in part, says that it acknowledges, quote, the dangerous consequences of perpetuating anti-semitic stereotypes and rejects anti-semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values
that define the people of the united states. and this will be brought to a house floor vote at some time this week, very likely tomorrow. and from there, the thing to watch is how her democratic colleagues react? will this be enough to just condemn her in the form of another resolution on the house floor, or will there be additional calls for her to be stripped of her committee assignments on the house foreign affairs committee. the chairman of that committee, a chairman who took part in writing this resolution, he has already called for her to retract and apologize for these latest round of comments, and that's something that jim and poppy, she has not done yet. >> as she responded to this criticism? >> she has. she has pushed back. we have seen her get in a twitter back and forth with many members who have called her out, really pushing back. and saying that in part, that she has been mischaracterized, but feelinging that's within her right to have a debate. she has not responded specifically to this resolution. so that will be certainly
interesting going forward, as this heads to a vote. >> yeah. we'll see that tomorrow. sunlen, on the hill. thank you so much. thank you all for being with us today. we'll see you tomorrow. i'm poppy harlow. >> and i'm jim sciutto. "at this hour with kate balduan" starts right now. hello, everyone. i'm kate balduan. president trump and the white house go on attack after house democrats launch a sweeping investigation into all things trump. and seemingly, all things in his orbit, even. the white house, the campaign, his business, and his family. they are among the 81 requests for documents and information sent by the house judiciary committee. they want answers within two weeks. what happens after that? no one knows. but the democratic chairman of the committee, jerry nadler, he makes it pretty clear, this is only the beginning. >> our goal is to hold the